to wonder whether it is actually true that "all the best schools are monopolised by the rich"?

[Hakluyt]

(State schools, obviously. Private ones are, by definition!)

It's often said on Mumsnet, and nobody ever questions it. But is it actually true? And how do we know whether it is true or not?

"Can you point us at where it's often said on Mumsnet? Because for something that's often said and never questioned it's proving remarkably resistant to the charms of Advanced Search."
Well, that particular sentence was used on a thread this morning. But the concept is always there, although in many different words-people talk about "leafy" comprehensives, for example. And about "having the freedom to move for a good comprehensive". It's there if you look.

Hak - that often isn't how it works though, in comps. My dyslexic DS is top set for maths, top set for science but was initially put in the double science grouping at the first options cut last term (which automatically would have removed him from top set maths too) because he is ... not good ... at English. (Actually, considering his challenges he is amazing, but that's a different story). The maths and science teachers made a fuss, as did we, and it was decided that the timetable could be tweaked to accommodate him being in a medium support English set (with his challenges you'd expect him to be in high support, that's what I mean when I say he's amazing) and still in the top maths and triple science sets. They did this, so I'm not complaining - but the supposition was, you're good at everything, or you're not. Not the ideal 'set according to each subject' which is probably what we'd all like to see. Resource constraints make this difficult to deliver in the real world.

That's different from saying that all the best schools are monopolised, though. "All" and "monopolised" are very strong terms. It's a trivial exercise to demonstrate that the sentence as it stands is untrue.

If you're really looking at whether the best schools tend to have a higher proportion of pupils from parents in particular socioeconomic groups than chance would suggest, then that's more interesting, but you'd need to define your terms. "Best" by what standard? What proportion are you counting as "best" - top 2%? top 5%? top 10%? How are you measuring socio-economic status? What are you counting as "rich"? How are you calculating the projected socioeconomic mix that chance would give you to compare with the actual school profile?

Still can't find that sentence in a thread from this morning, BTW - even just searching on "best schools rich" over the last two days isn't turning anything relevant up.

And there is something a bit glib about the assumption that because somebody is not academic, they are automatically good with their hands- or that if they are academic they aren't. The whole point of a comprehensive school is that they are (or should be) flexible- you can be set I for maths and textiles, set 4 for French and PE.

I don't disagree, but surely what is best for every child is to be in an environment where they can discover, and develop, what they are good at.

Not every child is academic, we all know that, but the current set up pushes for academic qualifications, when not every child is suited to that. Wouldn't it be better to have a system where every child is in a position to become something worthwhile, instead of being written off as a failure if they aren't good at Maths, or the Sciences, or English? I'm not saying that they shouldn't strive to gain decent results in those, just be able to develop whatever abilities they do have. Better to be a success at a skill, than simply written off as non-academic, or less able.

IMO, the best schools are the schools that have a varied intake and offer some added value at every level. The school often considered 'best' where I live gets the 'best' results, but nothing about it that I've seen is 'best' in any other way.

So, obviously, it depends on what you think 'best' means, as many have commented. I think it might be true to say that the average income at schools with the highest GCSE results is probably higher than that at the schools with the least impressive results. Especially if you factor in grammars and private schools, of course.

I know what Hakluyt was getting at though - there is a view, to which I subscribe, that catchment only comps select on depth of pockets. The reasoning behind this is that the relatively wealthy can always afford to move and buy/rent in the area for their preferred school. I firmly believe this is true although I accept that not everyone who could do this, measured purely on financial terms, does do this. It is also unlikely to be the case that most fabulous catchment comps will fill all their places with people who have moved into the catchment area - because most people aren't wealthy enough to be able to move, and some (but not all) catchment comps have deliberately designed catchments that take in areas of social housing to dilute the effect of carpet bagging. However if more good schools became catchment schools, ceasing to be grammar schools and faith schools (which many of the 'best' schools currently are) we might see more people taking advantage of their economic muscle to use the housing market to obtain the school of their choice, partly because there would be fewer alternative options.

Currently, the vast majority of the best schools (by results) do not operate under a catchment policy since they are grammars or faith schools and thus the ability to buy your way in through skilful use of the housing market is reduced.

Back to monopolisation, I think it's impossible to compare. Grammar schools here take the top 15-20%, as this is a rural county with a lower population level than, say Essex. Essex grammars take the top 5%, it may even be lower now, but it's certainly nowhere near the percentage up here.

The 'best' grammar round here gets excellent academic results. I wouldn't send either of mine there though, as the pastoral care is appalling, and the Head of the school is only interested in results.

When you get to A levels, the field changes again. There is no 6th Form at the local comprehensive, and all A level students go to that grammar, or the local college. The local college has a poor reputation, but the grammar school only wants the top students. So, in theory, all local children go to the local grammar for 6th form; in practise very few get in, and end up at the college.

There is a LOT of movement between that school and the other grammars in the area at A level, as a good percentage of the students find the results driven aims to be too stressful. The other two grammars closest to me are more rounded in their approach, and although they don't deliver as well results-wise, the pupils are a damn sight happier from personal experience.

This is, quite possibly, the most muddled post I have ever made.

I think "best" is meant by overall reputation results, teaching quality, management, discipline, facilities, etc. what makes it desirable. Of course the wealthy will gravitate towards desirable areas with desirable schools, pricing out less affluent. However, urban demographics can be very dynamic.

In reality 'best' tends to be translated as highest % of GCSE passes.

Even if the school is not in fact best at teaching. Facilities don't really enter into it.

Tortoise- just looked. You couldn't find it because it was on the the UKIP and schooling thread, which has some interesting discussion in amongst the mythic beasts. The thread has, for no good reason that I can think of, been deleted.

The schools with the best reputation will be the schools the middle classes like and speak well of and send their children too though, quite often. So it's a bit self-perpetuating!

I would be scared to read a UKIP thread. :(

(And I'm very surprised to hear that Karen was wrong about how the best people pronounce Haklyut!)

How do you pronounce 'Haklyut'?

TOSN - me too. So much so, that I avoided saying the word for years (not hard, I accept). There is some debate about exactly how it should be said- apparently in the original Dutch it would be Hac-light. But he was to intents and purposes an Englishman so apparently he said Hac-looyt. Ish. So Nick was right.

Personally I call him Richard.

I wish I knew as many useful things as I know useless ones.

Can't pronounce Haklyut or 'spectacularly ill conceived marriage', I suppose!

But Edwin was nice though. So maybe it all worked out ok.

Hak - I don't think these are useless things to know. I think they are the IMPORTANT things. Possibly why I haven't got particularly far in life!

(I think he turned out to have many redeeming features but wasn't the right husband for Karen, nor she the right stepmother for Rose Chas and Fob).

I though she was rather getting the hang of the step mother thing. But marriage certainly diminished her. And the chucking the aged retainer out of her cottage was......unpleasant.

I don't disagree, but surely what is best for every child is to be in an environment where they can discover, and develop, what they are good at

Agree.

• I wouldn't send either of mine there though, as the pastoral care is appalling, and the Head of the school is only interested in results

We have a number of Grammers round here and I know one in partiuclar has issues with students self harming and worse, due to pressure but not clear from parents or school

BEST to me is a school which aims high but supports low, and has excellent opportunities for students to try loads of extra curricular things....gives them a solid all round education with teachers and a head who are genuinely caring and inspiring.

I think... For me, the 'best' schools could never be schools which exclude based on wealth or potential to do well on exams. The 'best' schools would be (are) informed by the desire and aim to give their best to children of as many kinds as there are nearby. Sometimes that's more diverse than others, and other concerns and debate are implicated in that fact.